This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Wednesday, January 23rd, 2013.

I'm Caleb Brown.

Three years since this Citizens United decision allowed more players to get into political advocacy.

What has been the impact, Ray La Rajas, Associate Professor of Political Science at UMass

Amherst.

We spoke following the Cato Institute's conference on campaign finance and freedom of speech held today.

Several years ago you produced a study for the Cato Institute regarding the effects of campaign finance rules on states and

incumbents versus challengers.

You found that some restrictions harm

the fundraising of incumbents, but the same restrictions were more likely to harm the prospects of challengers.

Since Citizens United, since SpeechNow.org.

Where do you think that's headed and with regard to state level elections?

Well, there are some significant changes.

The previous study I worked on was trying to show that when you were strict money to

challengers, it's fair, worse.

So you want more money to go to challengers. Citizens United seems to open that up for them.

But here's the other part of the puzzle that I'm struggling with.

It doesn't seem to be that Citizens United has made much of an impact on election outcomes.

Now why is that? I ask myself. So one reason can be that these groups have simply adapted to the

environment. Simple as that. Another reason is through the adaptation there's an

arms race going on and they're just spending more money and what do we know

about financial spending the last marginal dollar doesn't have as much of an impact.

...